Written By: Emma Bissell
In late February 2026, a federal judge in Virginia issued a preliminary injunction blocking enforcement of a new state law designed to limit children’s access to social media. The ruling came in response to a constitutional challenge brought by NetChoice, a trade association representing major technology companies, which argued that the statute infringed on First Amendment rights. The decision highlights ongoing legal debates over how — and whether — governments can regulate online speech and technology platforms to address concerns related to youth well-being.
What Virginia’s Law Proposed
The law at the center of this dispute, enacted by the Virginia General Assembly in 2025 and effective January 1, 2026, sought to impose limits on social media usage by minors. Under the statute, known as Senate Bill 854, social media platforms must determine whether a user is under the age of 16 and set a default restriction of one hour per day of usage for those accounts unless a parent or guardian gives verifiable consent to increase or decrease that limit. The law also requires age verification and places other restrictions intended to protect youth online.
Supporters of the law described it as a public-health measure designed to combat excessive screen time and its alleged negative effects on children’s mental health and academic performance. The statute was passed and then signed by then-Governor Glenn Youngkin. Proponents argued that it offered a structured way to empower families while curbing what they viewed as addictive online behaviors.
NetChoice’s Legal Challenge
Shortly before the law was to take effect, NetChoice filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, seeking to block enforcement. The trade association, whose membership includes major technology companies such as YouTube, Instagram, Reddit and X Corp, contended that the statute violated the First Amendment by restricting access to lawful speech and expression online. Among the group’s arguments was that the law’s broad requirements — including age verification and time restrictions — could impose undue burdens on both platforms and users, adults and minors alike.
In its challenge, NetChoice relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association, where the court found that states have “the power to enforce parental prohibitions” but “it does not follow that the state has the power to prevent children from hearing or saying anything without their parents’ prior consent.”
NetChoice, further, maintained that placing government-mandated limits on access to protected speech, such as discussions of current events, educational content, or community engagement was an unconstitutional form of regulation.
The Court’s Decision
On February 27, 2026, U.S. District Judge Patricia Tolliver Giles granted NetChoice’s request for a preliminary injunction, halting the law’s enforcement while the litigation proceeds. In her ruling, the judge agreed that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits of their constitutional claims, particularly regarding free speech protections under the First Amendment. She noted that even well-intentioned government efforts to protect children must comply with foundational constitutional principles.
Specifically, Judge Giles determined that the law was not content neutral nor did it meet the strict scrutiny standard as it was not narrowly tailored to be the least restrictive means of protecting children from the potential harms of social media use. Rather, the law is overinclusive, burdening much more speech than necessary and even limiting the access of adults. Further, the court noted that the law violates the First Amendment Rights of minors, but also of the companies’ rights to distribute content.
The opinion emphasized that broad restrictions on access to online platforms — distinguished from traditional media — raise significant legal questions about the balance between regulatory objectives and free speech rights. As a result of the injunction, the statute will remain unenforced while the court continues to consider the legal arguments and potential defenses.
Broader Legal and Policy Context
Representatives for NetChoice welcomed the ruling as a reaffirmation of constitutional protections and the role of parents in determining how their children engage with online content. They characterized the decision as a defense of lawful speech and parental autonomy.
This case is part of a broader national conversation about the intersection of technology regulation, children’s well-being, and constitutional rights. Similar statutes in other states have faced legal challenges on analogous grounds, with courts examining the limits of government authority to regulate online platforms and speech. The Virginia case adds to a growing body of litigation testing the boundaries of state-level regulation of digital spaces and how constitutional protections apply in that context. This case comes just recently after the Supreme Court’s opinion in Paxton and Moody v. NetChoice, where again NetChoice brought suit after state governments attempted to regulate what content the platforms may distribute and what content may be received by various users.
As technology continues to evolve and digital platforms play an increasingly central role in daily life, courts and policymakers will likely revisit these issues with heightened scrutiny and continued debate. For now, the preliminary block of Virginia’s law represents a significant moment in the ongoing legal landscape surrounding online regulation and constitutional rights.
Sources
Jonathan Stempel, Judge blocks Virginia law restricting social media for children, Reuters, (Feb. 27, 2026), https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/judge-blocks-virginia-law-restricting-social-media-children-2026-02-27/.
Julia Broberg, Judge blocks Virginia law limiting minors’ social media use to one hour daily, ABC, WRIC News (Feb. 28, 2026), https://www.wric.com/news/virginia-news/judge-blocks-virginia-law-limiting-minors-social-media-use-to-one-hour-daily/.
Lauren Berg, NetChoice Gets Va. Social Media Limits for Kids Blocked, LAW 360 (Feb. 27, 2026), https://www.law360.com/articles/2447342.
NetChoice v. Jones, 1:25-cv-2067 (PTG/LRV) (E.D.Va. 2026).